Jeff Bone fumes:
> Gojo was heard to utter:
>> > Your complaints about the prewar case are really
> > complaints about the absurdities of the world
> > forum in which that case had to be made.
>> Yeah, it's really absurd that the U.S. should be forced to come up with
> some kind of MINIMALLY COGENT justification before the U.N.
We've already been over this. The case was overwhelmingly cogent. It
stood on many independent points, for different kinds of audiences.
That it could not convince a number of nations whose naked interests
were in the status quo, or a club of mostly-illegitimate nation states,
is not indicative of any failures in the case. Let history be the
ultimate judge.
> or in the
> court of world opinion generally for INVADING A FOREIGN, SOVEREIGN
> NATION beforehand.
No criminal (oppressive, non-democratic, aggressive) regime has
any "sovereignty" that's worth respecting. It's just a mob. Anyone who
wants to change such a regime is on the side of the right, the weaselly
notion of "sovereignty" notwithstanding. You might as well be arguing
from "the divine right of kings" or "droit de signeur" if
"sovereignty" is important to you.
> That's not right. I mean, sure, we generally
> insist that other countries avoid such behavior regardless of
> justification, but we're the U.S. after all. We don't NEED sensible
> reasons, we can do whatever the fuck we like! We don't have to play by
> the same rules as everybody else.
Your concept of "right" in this case, based on international formalism
rather than the security of free nations and freedom of individuals,
is bankrupt and should be discarded.
- Gordon